data collection for monitoring of youth guarantee schemes ... data collection 2015.pdf · poland:...
TRANSCRIPT
October 2016 1
Data collection for monitoring of Youth
Guarantee schemes: 2015
(First results)
DRAFT for consultation of EMCO IG
18 March 2016
For internal use only:
NOT FOR CIRCULATION
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 2
This report has received financial support from the European Union Programme for
Employment and Social Innovation “EaSI” (2014-2020). For further information, please
consult: http://ec.europa.eu/social/easi.
The report has been prepared by Alphametrics Ltd under contract to the European
Commission. The information contained in it does not necessarily reflect the official
position of the European Commission.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 3
Table of contents Executive summary ........................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6 2 Assessment of data provided ......................................................................... 6
2.1 Delivery of data .................................................................................... 6 2.2 Coverage ............................................................................................. 7 2.3 Completion of data ................................................................................ 7 2.4 Quality of data ...................................................................................... 9
3 Direct and follow-up monitoring results ..........................................................13 3.1 Direct monitoring .................................................................................13 3.2 Follow-up monitoring ............................................................................19
Annex .............................................................................................................21
List of tables & figures
Table 1 - Delays in the delivery of YG data 2015 ................................................... 6 Table 2 – Key improvements in the completion of data, YG 2015 ............................. 7 Table 3 – Key missing data, YG 2015 ................................................................... 8 Table 4 - Proportion of exits with unknown destinations, 2015 ...............................11 Table 5 - Proportion of unknown situations in 6m follow-up data for 2015 ...............12 Table 6 - Timely and positive offers by type of offer and the proportion that is subsidised,
EU28, 2015 (%) ...............................................................................................18 Table 7 - YG monitoring data, main variables, 2014 and 2015 ................................21 Table 8 - Direct supplementary: NEET coverage, 2015 (% NEET population) ............23 Table 9 - Direct supplementary: timely and positive exits from the YG, 2015 (% exits)
......................................................................................................................24 Table 10 - Direct main: proportion of young people in the YG for more than 4 months,
2015 (% stock) ................................................................................................25 Table 11 – Follow-up main: proportion of young people known to be in a positive
situation 6 months after exit from the YG, 2015 (% exits) .....................................26 Table 12 – Situation of young people (aged 15-24) 6 months after exit from the YG,
2015 (% exits) .................................................................................................27
Figure 1 - Coverage of YG schemes, 2014 and 2015 (% NEET population aged 15-24)
......................................................................................................................13 Figure 2 – Timely and positive exits from the YG, 2014 and 2015 (% all exits) .........15 Figure 3 – Proportion of young people currently in a YG scheme and registered for more
than 4 months, 2014 and 2015 (% annual average stock) .....................................16 Figure 4 - Distribution of timely and positive exits by type of offer, 2015 (% timely and
positive exits) ..................................................................................................17 Figure 5 – Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation
6 months after exit, 2014 and 2015 (% exits) ......................................................19
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 4
Executive summary The Council Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee (YG) was adopted in
April 2013 as the basis for concerted efforts to tackle the high levels of youth
unemployment prevalent across the European Union. The Youth Guarantee aims to
ensure that all young people receive a good-quality offer of a job, apprenticeship,
traineeship, or continued education within 4 months of leaving formal education or
becoming unemployed.
This report presents first results of monitoring the implementation of YG
schemes in 2015. Data collection was based on the Indicator Framework for Monitoring
the Youth Guarantee, endorsed by the Employment Committee (EMCO) in May 2015,
and the accompanying methodological manual, which was updated in March 2016
following completion of the 2014 monitoring exercise.
Data completion and quality
The 2015 data collection exercise has seen a clear improvement in the completion
and quality of data compared to that for 2014. A number of countries have made
substantial efforts to adjust the methods used to collect and/or compile their YG
monitoring data in order to improve coherence with the specifications of the Indicator
Framework. Qualitative data on the characteristics of offers have also been improved.
These efforts contribute to improved comparability of the data between countries, even
if there are still some specific issues that need to be taken into account when interpreting
results.
Key areas for improvement relate to the completion of follow-up data (still not available
for 8 countries) and reducing the number of unknown destinations and subsequent
situations in both exit and follow-up data.
All countries except Hungary, where the YG scheme was launched only on 1 January
2015, are now reporting data on a continuous monitoring basis so that – in
accordance with the intention of the Indicator Framework - the data for 2015 include
(in stocks and exits) young people that registered in 2014 and were still in the YG
preparatory phase in 2015.
Main results
Nearly 5.5 million young people entered YG schemes in 2015, 1.4 million fewer than in
2014, a decline that partly reflects the reduced inflows to unemployment in large
countries such as Germany and the UK and partly the fact that the 2014 figures were
bolstered by countries that automatically transferred into the new scheme all young
people that were already registered as unemployed on the launch date.
Just under 2.5 million were registered with a YG provider at any point during 2015,
virtually the same as in 2014, meaning that YG schemes covered 37.5% of the 6.6
million NEETs aged 15-24 in the EU, slightly more than in 2014 (35.5%). Coverage rates
varied from over 80% in Austria and France to below 10% in Malta and Hungary.
Of the 5.4 million young people that left YG schemes during 2015, 2.2 million (40.3%)
took up an offer of employment, education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4
months of registration, though the real figure is likely to be higher as the reason for
leaving is unknown for more than a fifth of cases. The average results across countries
is better at 46.4% as the overall EU figure is weighed down by lower results in a few
larger countries.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 5
Of the 2.5 million young people enrolled in a national YG scheme and still waiting for an
offer at any point during 2015, well over half (58.1%) had been registered for more
than 4 months (i.e. beyond the target period for delivering an offer). The 2015 result
represents a noticeable increase compared to 2014 (50.9%) and raises some concern
about the capacity to deliver timely offers and possible accumulation of young people
that are difficult to place (and who may also need longer accompanying measures),
something that may occur alongside high flows of short-term participants.
Of the 2.2 million young people that took up an offer of employment, education, an
apprenticeship, or a traineeship within 4 months of registering in a YG scheme, 1.5
million, or 70.2% took up an employment opportunity. The remaining 0.7 million mostly
took up offers of a traineeship or continued education (13.6% and 12.1% of all timely
offers respectively) while far fewer are reported to have taken up an apprenticeship
(4.1%).
Follow-up data on the situation of young people 6, 12 or 18 months after leaving the
YG are only available for 20 countries. Of the 2.5 million young people that left YG
schemes in these countries during 2015, less than 0.9 million (35.5%) were known to
be in employment, education or training 6 months after exit. However, it should be clear
that this figure is likely to be significantly understated because the situation of just over
one million (41.1%) of this cohort was unknown.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 6
1 Introduction In April 2013 EU Member States endorsed the principles laid out in The Council
Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee as the basis for concerted efforts
to tackle the high levels of youth unemployment prevalent across the European Union.
The Youth Guarantee aims to ensure that all young people receive a good-quality offer
of a job, apprenticeship, traineeship, or continued education within 4 months of leaving
formal education or becoming unemployed.
The Recommendation gives the European Commission the role of monitoring the
implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes in each EU Member State “through the
multi-lateral surveillance of the Employment Committee within the framework of the
European Semester”. A monitoring framework has accordingly been established through
the development of the Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee,
endorsed by the Employment Committee (EMCO) in May 2015, and an accompanying
methodological manual. The latter is considered to be a “living document that may be
revised in response to the practical experience of data collection and/or policy needs”
and was updated in March 2016 following the experience of the first formal collection of
data for reference year 2014.
This report presents first results of the second data collection exercise for reference year
2015. It provides a brief overview of the completion and quality of data and of the main
indicator results, while accompanying fiches for each country provide more insights into
specific issues related to the national level data. More detailed analysis and
interpretation of the results considered in the context of the underlying labour market
situation of young people will follow in a later report.
2 Assessment of data provided
2.1 Delivery of data
The collection of data for monitoring the implementation of YG schemes in 2015 was
launched on 31 March 2016 with a deadline of 1 June. The number of countries
delivering data on time (16, see Table 1) was one more than for the 2014 data (15),
but for the remainder there were more delays, with 6 countries delivering more than a
month late compared to just 1 for 2014 data. It should be noted however that countries
made an effort this year to provide data earlier so that results were available in time for
the 4 October Commission Communication The Youth guarantee and Youth Employment
Initiative three years on.
Alongside the quantitative data, the 2015 collection included a revised and more detailed
questionnaire on the characteristics of the offers provided. All countries except France
completed this questionnaire.
Table 1 - Delays in the delivery of YG data 2015
Delay Countries Count
None BE, DK, DE, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, AT, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE 16
<1 week CZ, EE, MT 3
1-2 weeks LV, UK 2
2-4 weeks SK 1
4-6 weeks BG, IE, NL, PT 4
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 7
>6 weeks EL, FR 2
2.2 Coverage
2.2.1 Improvements
Three countries have improved the coverage of YG monitoring data by providing data
for additional providers:
Belgium: Arbeitsamt der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft (ADG) – PES of the
German speaking community.
Latvia: State Education Development Agency (data provided for 2014 also).
Poland: Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (provider for a business start-up loan
programme)
In addition, the UK extended the coverage of data to cover young people in receipt of
the employment element of Universal Credit (as well as recipients of Jobseekers
Allowance).
2.2.2 Outstanding issues
It remains the case that in the majority of countries YG monitoring data cover only
young people either registered as unemployed with the PES or in receipt of certain
welfare benefits (unemployment benefits only in Ireland and the UK, unemployment
benefits and social assistance in Denmark and the Netherlands). Data therefore miss
young NEETs not registered with the PES or not in receipt of a relevant benefit. For
example, in both Ireland and the UK unemployment benefits are only available to those
aged 18 or over so that support for younger NEETs is not covered by the monitoring
data.
2.3 Completion of data
2.3.1 Improvements
The majority of countries are now able to provide data that are largely complete in terms
of providing the observations needed to calculate indicators. Indeed, the 2015 data
show a number of improvements compared to 2014 in terms of the completion of key
variables (Table 2). Most notably, five countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg
and Hungary) provided follow-up data for the first time.
Table 2 – Key improvements in the completion of data, YG 2015
Variable Breakdown Countries Count
Entrants & stocks Age UK 1
Entrants Previous YG experience* BE, DE, EL, PL 4
Stocks & exits Duration UK 1
Follow-up All BG, CY, LV, LU, HU 5
* EE added data on a small number of young people with no previous experience, which refers to people registered via the Ministry of Education and Research but the breakdown is still missing for more than 99% of entrants that register through the PES.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 8
Other improvements include the addition of breakdowns by age and by duration in the
UK1, and addition of the breakdown of entrants by previous YG experience in 4 countries.
Note that improvements in terms of the detail provided within a breakdown (e.g.
different types of destination recorded or level of detail regarding previous YG
experience) are treated as improvements in quality in section 2.4 rather than as
improvement in the completion of data, which refers to whether data for a variable or
breakdown exist at all.
It is worth noting also that the more detailed questionnaire on the characteristics of
offers, together with significant efforts by some countries to provide more
comprehensive information, has also contributed to the improve quality of data. For
example, the additional information available and bilateral exchanges during the
validation process have led to some offers being reclassified (from one type of offer to
another) so that they better match the guidance provided in the FAQ on the YG. Others
entries have been removed from the list of offers because they referred to services (e.g.
counselling and other job-search assistance) in the preparatory phase or to unassisted
take-up of employment or other offers.
Countries that have noticeably improved the qualitative information about the
characteristics of offers include Denmark, Romania, Sweden and the UK, but this is not
a comprehensive list as many others made small improvements. As noted above, France
is the only country that did not complete the extended template for 2015.
2.3.2 Outstanding issues
Despite the improvements in completion of the data summarised above, there remain
some gaps, the most important of which relates to follow-up data, which are still not
available for 8 countries (Table 3) so that the related indicators cannot be calculated.
Several other countries provide data that are still partial (cover only part of the
population or selected situations).
Table 3 – Key missing data, YG 2015
Variable Breakdown Countries Count
All variables Age NL 1
Entrants Previous YG experience CZ, EE, FR, LV, NL, PL, RO, FI, UK 9
Exits Subsidised offers by duration, sex or age
RO 1
Follow-up All CZ, DE, EE, FR, NL, SI, FI, UK 8
The breakdown of entrants by previous YG experience is not needed for any of the
(current) indicators but is useful to assess the extent of recycling through the YG, which
can be an indicator of the quality of offers delivered. This information is missing for 9
countries and only partially complete for a number of others.
Romania records the total number of subsidised offers (by type) during the year but
cannot identify how these are distributed by the duration, sex or age of those taking up
the offers.
The Netherlands cannot provide a breakdown by age as this is not required in the source
data, which are collated for the EU LMP database. However, young people aged 15-19
1 The improved breakdown of data by age and duration was in fact added in a revision to 2014 data provided after the completion of the 2014 collection rather than during the 2015 collection. The improvement is therefore in comparison to the situation described in the 2014 results report of February 2015.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 9
are known to contribute less than 10% of those entering the YG (recipients of
unemployment and social benefits).
2.4 Quality of data
2.4.1 Improvements
Several countries have made substantial efforts to adjust the methods used to collect
and/or compile their YG monitoring data in order to improve coherence with the
specifications of the Indicator Framework. Examples of the significant improvements
made are summarised below, though it should be pointed out that many other minor
improvements that all contribute to enhanced quality and comparability of data have
also been made, including cases where offers have been reclassified (e.g. from
traineeship to continued education) to better meet the definitions provided in the
Indicator Framework and in the FAQ on the YG.
Unified approach amongst providers
Belgium: YG schemes are implemented independently by the PES in each
region/community. For reference year 2014, the data provided by the three
regional PES (Le Forem, VDAB and Actiris) were compiled using different
methodologies and there were some significant divergences from the
specifications of the Indicator Framework. Consequently, it was not possible to
combine data to produce national level results and the data previously presented
for Belgium referred only to Le Forem (Walloon region). Now the four PES
(including also ADG for the German speaking community) have worked together
to ensure a common approach and have delivered data both for each provider
(PES) and as a national level aggregate. The data are now considered to be
aligned with the specifications of the Indicator Framework. The data for 2014 (Le
Forem only) remain in the YG database and contribute to EU averages for that
year, but cannot be compared to data for 2015 and beyond.
New YG monitoring system
Hungary: the YG scheme was formally launched only on 1 January 2015 and
data from a new YG register, which is separate from the PES unemployment
register, have been provided accordingly. Since this represents a completely new
scheme, data are on a “new starts” basis. The data for reference year 2014 were
taken from the unemployment register and covered all young people registered
as unemployed during that year. The data for 2014 remain in the YG database
and contribute to EU averages for that year, but cannot be compared to data for
2015 and beyond.
Revised methods for main variables
Denmark: in 2014 data, young people that exited during a month were included
in the stock even if they were not part of the stock on the observation date (last
day of the month). The calculation has now been revised to count only those
registered on the day of observation and applied to both 2014 and 2015 data.
Greece: entrants now correctly include re-entrants, which means that data on
previous YG experience are now relevant.
Spain: stocks now based on monthly average rather than a single year-end
figure. Follow-up data have also been improved so that observations are
correctly made at 6, 12 and 18 months after the exit date of each participant
rather than at fixed points in time (i.e. same date for each participant).
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 10
Poland: various adjustments to better align data with the specifications of the
Indicator Framework. Most importantly, the measurement of flows in and out of
the YG has been adjusted to count participations rather than individuals. Revised
data for 2014 were also provided.
Portugal: adjusted the recording of the YG spell to correctly measure the time
from registration to take-up of an offer (rather than to receipt of an offer).
Interruptions of more than 28 days now cause a break (exits and possible re-
start) in the YG spell (previously participation was considered continuous). And,
in relation to the optional data for the 25-29 age-group, persons that registered
at age 29 (or below) but became 30 now continue to be counted (previously they
were automatically de-registered at this point). All improvements have been
applied to a revised set of 2014 data.
Slovenia: adjusted methods to ensure that young people participating in a
training measure that does not break the unemployment spell are excluded from
the stock and treated correctly as re-entrants if they return to unemployment
after the end of the training.
Refined recording of exits to ensure only quality offers are recorded
Denmark: the data delivered for 2015 treated counselling as an offer (recorded
as subsidised education), and therefore as a positive exit and possible restart (if
still unemployed after the end of the counselling). Although counselling is an
important element of Danish activation policy, according to the definitions of the
Indicator Framework it should be treated as a service delivered in the
preparatory phase and not as an offer. Accordingly, both 2014 and 2015 data
have been revised to correctly treat those benefitting from counselling as part of
the stock and not as exits or restarts (if still unemployed after the end of the
counselling).
Spain: some activities that should be considered part of the preparatory phase
(e.g. individual advice, placement with recruitment agencies, etc.) are no longer
recorded as exits.
Lithuania: introduced 28-day quality criteria for offers, any offers lasting less
than this are not counted as exits.
Malta: no longer count MCAS remedial classes as offers. These are preventative
actions aimed at students at risk of not completing their education so that the
beneficiaries are by definition not NEET and therefore outside the scope of the
YG monitoring, even if an important aspect of the policy approach.
Portugal: short-term training that does not fulfil the criteria of a quality offer is
now not counted as an exit and participants instead remain in the stock. 2014
data were also revised.
Improved breakdown of exits by destination and/or follow-up by situation
Spain: young people still participating in an apprenticeship or traineeship offer
at the relevant observation point are now included in follow-up data (previously
no apprenticeships or traineeships were recorded in follow-up).
Croatia: refined the
Italy: added destination unemployment in follow-up data by linking with PES
registers. Proportion of unknowns in follow-up data reduced to 8%.
Poland: follow-up data now cover all situations, previously the only known
situations referred to young people returning to the unemployment register.
Portugal: YG data have been linked with the register of social security
contributions to provide more comprehensive coverage of young people in
employment on exit and in follow-up data. Similarly, links have been established
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 11
with the education and training database to provide better coverage of those in
continued education after exit (i.e. in follow-up data).
2.4.2 Outstanding issues
The wide range of changes made has contributed to improved compliance with the
definitions of the YG Indicator Framework and, therefore, the overall quality and
comparability of data. Nevertheless, the improvement process is still a work in progress
and there remain important issues in some countries that need to be taken into account
when assessing results.
The two most important issues affecting comparability of indicator results are:
High proportion of unknowns in exits data. The supplementary indicator for
direct monitoring measures the effectiveness of YG delivery by measuring the
proportion of exits that are both timely and positive. Achieving accurate results
means recording outcomes for those that find offers on their own initiative as
well as those delivered by the provider. Unfortunately, in many cases exit data
are reliant on young people informing the PES or other provider on why they are
leaving (e.g. failed to turn up for interviews or otherwise ended a claim for
benefits) and they fail to do so meaning that the data are incomplete and the
proportion of unknown destinations is high. This will impact negatively on
indicator results since a proportion of the unknowns – quite possibly a significant
one – will relate to young people that have found work (or a training) without
informing the PES. Only countries that link the YG data with other registers are
able to provide complete information and their indicator results are therefore
liable to be better.
Spain and the Netherlands report no unknown exits and the proportion is below
1% in Germany, Italy and Slovakia. On the other hand, destination is unknown
for more than 30% of exits in 9 countries (Table 4), with the proportion being
over half in the UK (58.3%) and approaching two-thirds in Cyprus (65.2%).
Table 4 - Proportion of exits with unknown destinations, 2015
Unknowns (%) Countries Count
<1% DE, ES, IT, NL, SK 5
1-10% BG, HU, RO, SI 4
10-20% DK, IE, MT 3
20-30% BE, CZ, EE, HR, LV, FI, SE 7
30-40% FR, LT, AT, PL, PT 5
>40% EL, CY, LU, UK 4
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database
High proportion of unknowns in follow-up data. Many countries lack
capacity to track the situation of young people after leaving the YG or after a
subsidised offer comes to an end – i.e. once they lose contact with the PES or
other provider. Only six countries have data with less than 20% unknowns (Table
5) and of these only Denmark, Ireland, Italy have less than 10%. At the other
extreme, there are six countries in which more the situation is unknown for more
than half of those leaving the YG in 2015.
This clearly means that follow-up indicators are of limited value for comparison
between countries. Moreover, it is not practical to adjust the figures to compare
results using only known situations because these cover different groups within
the exits. For example, in some cases known situations refer only to people who
are still in contact with the PES because they are still participating in an active
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 12
measure or have returned to the unemployment register whilst in other cases
known situations cover people on the PES unemployment register or on the social
security register (because they are in paid employment) but not those in
education, whilst others might know who is in education but not who is in
employment, etc.
Table 5 - Proportion of unknown situations in 6m follow-up data for 2015
Unknowns (%) Countries Count
<20% DK, IE, ES, IT, HU, AT, 6
20-40% BE, EL, HR, LT, LU, MT, PT, SE 8
40-60% -
60-80% BG, PL, RO 3
>80% CY, LV, SK, 3
100% (no follow-up data) CZ, DE, EE, FR, NL, SI, FI, UK 8
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database
Another issue that only impacts on more detailed analysis of the data is the lack of
capacity to distinguish different types of offers (amongst known destinations). Typically,
this affects apprenticeships and traineeships, which in some countries cannot be
distinguished from employment or from continued education depending on the data
sources available and/or how the system of education and training is organised. Such
issues are identified in country fiches but the impact is that the comparability of
breakdowns of exits and subsequent situations by type of offer is limited to some extent.
Other cases where the monitoring data available are not fully compliant with the
specifications of the Indicator Framework, and therefore have a potential impact on the
results and the comparability with other countries, include:
- Czech Republic: the current method of YG monitoring follows young people for
12 months after registration – monthly files follow the people registered in each
month and record how many exit in each of the following months and, therefore,
the remaining stock by duration. Young people that remain in the YG more than
12 months are therefore not counted in the data meaning that stocks and exits
are understated compared to entrants and both the main and supplementary
indicators will show better results than the reality (because people with duration
of over 12 months are not included).
- Czech Republic and Greece: some young people participating in offers and
counted as a positive exit may be included in the stock because the measures
do not break the unemployment spell. Further, this group is not counted as re-
entrants if they return to the YG (i.e. are unemployed again) after the end of the
offer, which is usually labour market training of some form. In the Czech Republic
a second exit (not necessarily positive) is also recorded when the unemployment
spell finally ends but in Greece this is not the case. Note that countries such as
Estonia and Slovenia have already encountered and tackled this issue in order to
ensure that people taking up a quality offer but remaining registered unemployed
are excluded from the stock and correctly recorded as a re-entrant should they
return to unemployment. An exchange of experience might be helpful for the
Czech Republic and Greece.
- Spain: young people remain on the YG register until they reach the age of 30.
Exits to offers and subsequent re-entrants (where relevant) are now recorded
correctly but the fact that no negative exit is possible (a person is not
deregistered if they are unavailable to work or are not seeking work) means that
100% of exits are positive which creates a difference with other countries.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 13
Further, only subsidised offers are recorded – i.e. open market offers are not
covered. In practice, this may not have a major impact on the results as in Spain
all employers that take on a young person are automatically eligible for
reductions/exemptions in the social contributions normally due so that effectively
all jobs for young people are subsidised.
- France: the YG scheme is defined to last 18 months and any persons remaining
on the PES jobseeker register after this time are automatically deregistered from
the YG.
3 Direct and follow-up monitoring results Note about the data
Figures labelled “EU average” are unweighted averages of all available country figures.
These are most relevant for comparison of indicator results between countries. Figures
labelled “EU28” (or in the case of follow-up data, “EU20”) are based on EU level
aggregates that take into account all affected NEETs in all countries for which data are
available – i.e. they are weighted averages. These figures describe the overall situation
of NEETs in the EU but can be significantly influenced by the situation in a small number
of large countries.
3.1 Direct monitoring
3.1.1 YG schemes are not yet reaching a large part of the target population
Nearly 5.5 million young people (3.0 million men and 2.5 million women) entered YG
schemes in 2015, 1.4 million fewer than in 2014. The lower number of starts reflects
partly the reduced inflows to unemployment in large countries such as Germany and
the UK and partly the fact that the 2014 figures were bolstered by some countries that
automatically transferred into the new scheme all young people that were already
registered as unemployed on the launch date (“new starts plus start-up stocks”
method). At the same time, in Spain and Italy, the number of new starts during 2015
was significantly higher than in 2014 as awareness of the new schemes, and
consequently registration rates, increased.
Just under 2.5 million young people (1.3 million men and 1.1 million women) were
registered with a YG provider at any point during 2015, virtually the same as in 2014.
YG schemes therefore covered 37.5% of all NEETs aged 15-24 in the EU, a slightly
higher proportion than in 2014 (35.5%) as the number of NEETs fell from just under 7
million to 6.6 million. Coverage rates varied considerably between countries (Figure 1
and Table 8), ranging from over 80% in Austria and France to just over 10% in Spain
and Italy and less still in Malta (6%) and in Hungary (3%), where the YG scheme was
only launched on 1 January 2015. On average, the coverage rate of YG schemes ("EU
average”) in 2015 was 41.9% compared to 40.4% in 2014, the actual coverage in the
EU as a whole ("EU28") being lower (37.5%) because of low coverage rates in three of
the countries with the largest NEET populations (Italy, the UK and Spain)2.
Figure 1 - Coverage of YG schemes, 2014 and 2015 (% NEET population aged 15-24)
2 Figures labelled “EU average” are unweighted averages of all available country figures. Figures labelled “EU28” (or in the case of follow-up data, “EU20”) are based on EU level aggregates that take into account all affected NEETs in all countries for which data are available. These are effectively weighted averages that can be significantly influenced by the situation in larger countries.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 14
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only; HU – the YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, data for 2014 refer to all young people registered as unemployed.
Across the EU (i.e. EU28 aggregate, not average), YG schemes reached a higher
proportion of young male NEETs (40.3%) than young female NEETs (34.7%). The
largest differences can be seen in the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria where
coverage rates for men were more than 25 pp ahead of those for women, but there are
also cases such as Croatia and Poland where the coverage of women was well above
that of men (18 pp higher). There is also a slightly smaller difference by age with 39.6%
of those aged 15-19 covered compared to 35.7% of those aged 20-24. In this case there
is much more variation between countries with coverage rates varying in favour of both
age-groups such that when expressed as an average of country results there is virtually
no difference (41.8% vs 41.9%).
In general, therefore, YG schemes are still some way off the objective of reaching all
young persons that become NEET after leaving school or becoming unemployed, though
it should be noted that the data do not cover all of the support provided. It remains the
case that in most countries the YG monitoring data only cover young people that have
registered with the public employment services and miss young people accessing
support delivered by other providers. In Ireland and the UK, for example, data cover
only young people aged 18 or over that receive an unemployment benefit.
Consequently, services for younger NEETs (mostly delivered by education authorities)
and older NEETs not receiving an unemployment benefit are not covered. In other
countries, support delivered by specialist youth services (youth organisations, centres
and associations, NGOs) may be missed but it is not possible at this stage to estimate
the extent to which these might improve coverage of the target population.
3.1.2 Just over 40% of those leaving YG schemes took up an offer within 4
months
Outflows from YG schemes in 2015 almost matched inflows with a total of 5.4 million
young people (3.0 million men and 2.4 million women) exiting after taking up an offer
or otherwise being deregistered3 during the year, slightly fewer than in 2014 (5.6
million). Of these, 2.2 million (40.3%) took up an offer of employment, education, an
3 Deregistration may occur for a variety of reasons including not being available to take up work (e.g. due to sickness, maternity or moving away), not fulfilling obligations (e.g. failing to attend interviews), and expiry of entitlement to YG services (e.g. in France the YG scheme lasts a maximum of 18 months and all young people that have not taken up an offer within this time are automatically deregistered).
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 15
apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4 months of registration, though the real figure
is likely to be higher as the reason for leaving is unknown for more than a fifth of cases4.
There are significant variations in results at country level (Figure 2 and Table 9). Figures
varied from 94% in Hungary, where the YG scheme is new and the numbers involved
are still small, and over 70% in Denmark, Spain, Italy and Malta, to less than a quarter
in Greece, France and the UK and less than 10% in Cyprus. On average across countries,
46.4% of exits were timely and positive in 2015 compared to 47.6% in 2014. The
country average ("EU average") is higher than the overall EU figure ("EU28") for two
reasons. On the one hand, the better results (e.g. those over 60%) are mostly
concentrated in countries where the YG covers relatively small numbers of NEETs, either
because of the size of the NEET population (CZ, DK, MT) or because of low coverage
rates (ES, HU and, to a lesser extent, IT). On the other hand, two of the least effective
schemes in terms of delivering offers within 4 months are in large countries (FR and UK)
and therefore have a higher weight, though in the case of the UK it should be noted that
the figure is liable to be significantly understated because of a very high proportion of
unknown destinations (64.2%)5.
The proportion of exits that were both timely and positive was slightly higher for women
(EU28: 41.4%) than for men (39.5%) indicating no gender bias in delivery of offers.
Indeed, the difference between the sexes was less than 10 pp in all countries. There
was more difference by age, with delivery efficiency higher for those aged 20-24 (EU28:
43.2%) compared to those aged 15-19 (36.3%). However, with the exception of Malta
(results much better for the younger age group) and Romania (results better for the
older group), the differences by age are below 10 pp in all countries and the EU average
shows little difference (1.5 pp in favour of those aged 20-24). The EU28 aggregate result
is weighted in favour of the 20-24 age-group largely because of the result in France
(difference of 9 pp), which contributes more than a fifth of all exits from the YG.
Figure 2 – Timely and positive exits from the YG, 2014 and 2015 (% all exits)
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only. HU – the YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, data on exits by duration were not available in 2014.
4 In 2015, destination was unknown for 21.2% of exits within 4 months of registration, down from 26.7% in 2014. 5 The UK data also refer to exits within 3 months rather than 4, though this will have less impact on the results than the high proportion of unknowns.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 16
3.1.3 Well over half of YG participants registered for more than 4 months
Of the 2.5 million young people (1.3 million men and 1.1 million women) enrolled in a
national YG scheme and still waiting for an offer at any point during 2015, well over half
(1.4 million or 58.1%) had been registered for more than 4 months (i.e. beyond the
target period for delivering an offer). The 2015 result represents a noticeable increase
compared to 2014 (50.9%), a change that - at least in part - reflects the increasing
maturity of the schemes in some countries6. When the proportion of those currently
registered in the YG for more than 4 months is high this may flag a general difficulty to
deliver offers within the target period and/or an accumulation of young people that are
difficult to place (and who may also need longer accompanying measures), something
that may occur alongside high flows of short-term participants.
During 2015, the proportion of YG participants registered for more than 4 months varied
from less than 30% in Estonia, Malta and Luxembourg to more than 60% in Ireland and
Slovakia and over 70% in Romania and France, with an average of 46.4% (Figure 3 and
Table 10). The fact that the overall EU figure (58.1%) is significantly higher than the
country average (46.4%) is largely (but not only) attributable to the situation in France,
which accounted for nearly four in ten (37.6%) of the young people registered for more
than 4 months7, and, to a much lesser extent, Poland (11.4%).
Figure 3 – Proportion of young people currently in a YG scheme and registered for more than 4 months, 2014 and 2015 (% annual average stock)
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included
in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only; HU – the YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, data for 2014 refer to all young people registered as unemployed.
The proportion registered for more than 4 months was slightly higher for women (EU28:
59.3%) than for men (57.0%). The difference between the sexes was small in most
countries but was greatest in Poland and Latvia, where a higher proportion of women
were registered for longer than 4 months (11.7 and 9.2 pp difference respectively) and
in Malta where the results were worse for men (difference of 7.9 pp).
As with other indicators, there was more variation by age-group with 60.8% of those
aged 15-19 registered for more than 4 months compared to 57.0% of those aged 20-
6 In countries that launched the YG scheme as a new initiative in 2014 (rather than reinforcing existing practices) duration of participation in the scheme started from zero for all participants so that for one third of the year no participants could have a duration of more than 4 months. In 2015, durations of more than 4 months are possible throughout the year. 7 Results in France are partially attributable to the fact that some accompanying services typically last longer than 4 months.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 17
24 (Table 10). In this case, however, the EU aggregate results are quite different from
the average across countries, which gives much lower results and shows more of the
older age-group registered for longer (48.1% for those aged 20-24 vs 43.9% for those
aged 15-19). Again, the EU28 aggregate is heavily influenced by results in France, which
accounted for just over 30% of the total stock of young people registered in YG schemes
during 2015 and nearly 42% of the 15-19 age-group. Noticeable differences in the
results by age can be seen in Greece, Finland, the UK, and most of all in Malta, where
well over half (59.1%) of those aged 20-24 had been registered for more than 4 months
compared to less than a fifth (18.1%) of those aged 15-19.
3.1.4 70% of offers taken up within 4 months were employment opportunities
Of the 2.2 million young people that took up an offer of employment, education, an
apprenticeship, or a traineeship within 4 months of registering in a YG scheme, 1.5
million, or 70.2% took up an employment opportunity (Figure 4, “EU28”). This includes
open market jobs found on the own initiative of young people as well as those found
with assistance from the YG provider, together with various forms of short and longer-
term placements subsidised with public funds. The remaining 0.7 million mostly took up
offers of a traineeship or continued education (13.6% and 12.1% of all timely offers
respectively) while far fewer are reported to have taken up an apprenticeship (4.1%).
In practice, the numbers taking up all types of offer are likely to be understated. Firstly,
in some countries, there are significant numbers of young people that leave the YG
without any record of where they have gone8 and it is likely that a significant proportion
will have found a job or, to a lesser extent, re-entered education or training. Secondly,
some countries have difficulties to monitor particular types of offer. For example, it may
not be possible to track young people returning to the regular education system,
apprenticeships may be recorded as a form of employment offer9 and, in others,
traineeships form part of the regular education system and are therefore recorded as
education offers.
The distribution of timely and positive offers by type of offer in each country has to be
viewed bearing in mind the limitations of the data noted above but, on the basis of the
data available, it is clear that employment offers are most important in the large
majority of countries, accounting for an average of 69.3% of timely offers (Figure 4,
“EU average”). Exceptions are Denmark, Spain and Malta, where the YG schemes have
a clear focus on improving the employability of young people through continued
education (59.5%, 53.2%, and 77.1% of timely offers respectively, compared to an
average of 16.8%) and Italy where traineeships are most important (61.7% compared
to an average of 11.4%). Cyprus and Finland are the only other countries in which
traineeships accounted for more than 30% of timely offers in 2015. On average,
apprenticeships account for just 2.5% of known offers, with Spain and Austria the only
countries to report more than 10% apprenticeships (12.5% and 12.1% respectively).
Figure 4 - Distribution of timely and positive exits by type of offer, 2015 (% timely
and positive exits)
8 For example, in some Member States if a young person fails to attend one or more compulsory interviews with the PES, unemployment (or other) benefits are terminated and they are deregistered from the YG with destination unknown. 9 For example, in the case that data come from the social security register which does not distinguish different forms of employment contract.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 18
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
More than a quarter (just under 600 000 or 27.2%) of all known offers taken up within
4 months of registration were fully or partly subsidised with public money. This includes
the majority of traineeships (87.8%), more than half of continued education offers
(57.7%) and nearly half of apprenticeships (47.4%), but less than one in ten
employment offers (8.9%). The proportion of timely offers that was subsidised varies
from 100% in Spain and 98.8% in Malta to less than 1% in the Netherlands and the UK.
As noted in section 2.4.2, the situation in Spain is somewhat unique because all jobs
taken up by young people are automatically eligible for reductions/exemptions in
employers’ contributions so that all employment offers are effectively subsidised.
There was very little difference between the sexes in terms of the types of offer taken
up (Table 6), except that a slightly higher proportion of women took up a traineeship
(15.3% of timely offers compared to 12.2% for men). There were, however, more
differences by age with (as might be expected) more of the younger age-group taking
up education and apprenticeship offers, and to a lesser extent traineeship offers, than
those aged 20-24. Consequently, the proportion of those aged 15-19 taking up an
employment offer was much lower (56.1% vs 73.9% for those aged 20-24). Offers
taken up by those aged 15-19 were also more likely to be subsidised (32.7% vs 26.1%).
This largely reflects the fact that fewer took up open market jobs.
Table 6 - Timely and positive offers by type of offer and the proportion that is subsidised, EU28, 2015 (%)
Employment Education Apprenticeship Traineeship Subsidised (all types)
Total 15-24 70.0% 12.1% 4.2% 13.6% 27.3%
Men 70.8% 12.3% 4.8% 12.2% 26.8%
Women 69.1% 11.9% 3.6% 15.3% 27.9%
15-19 56.1% 18.5% 9.0% 16.4% 32.7%
20-24 73.9% 10.4% 2.8% 12.9% 26.1%
25-29 79.4% 5.3% 1.1% 14.2% 21.7%
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 19
3.2 Follow-up monitoring
3.2.1 Just over a third of those leaving the YG in 2015 known to be in a positive
situation 6 months later
Follow-up data on the situation of young people 6, 12 or 18 months after leaving the
YG are not yet available for 8 of the 28 EU Member States (CZ, DE, EE, FR, NL, SI, FI
and UK, see section 2.3.2). Of the 2.5 million young people that left YG schemes in the
remaining 20 countries during 2015, less than 0.9 million (35.5%) were known to be in
employment, education or training 6 months after exit. However, it should be clear that
this figure is likely to be significantly understated because the situation of just over one
million (41.1%) of this cohort was unknown. In addition to those not providing any
follow-up data, several other countries have limited capacity to track all young people
after they leave the YG and lose contact with the YG provider10. For example, the 6-
month situation is unknown for around 80% of exits in Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia,
75% in Bulgaria and nearly 70% in Poland (Table 12). Indeed, the high proportion of
unknowns in Poland, which accounts for more than a quarter of all young people
followed-up in 2015, contributes to the overall EU figure of 35.5% in a positive situation
(Figure 5, “EU20”) being lower than the average across countries (40.2%, “EU
average”).
Figure 5 – Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit, 2014 and 2015 (% exits)
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only.
As well as the unknown situations, it is also important to note that in some countries
the data available at the time of data collection referred to an observation point at which
some of those exiting the YG in 2015 had not reached 6 months after exit – these are
persons for whom the follow-up observation is “not applicable” rather than “unknown”.
Unlike the unknown category, which is likely to cover different groups in each country
depending on the data sources available, there is no obvious reason for the not
applicable group to be biased so that it is reasonable to consider results excluding this
group. Adjusted figures for those in positive situation are not so different at EU level
(EU20: 37.9% vs 35.5% unadjusted) but make substantial differences in countries
where the observation point was too early to catch significant numbers of those exiting
10 In some cases, known situations cover only people that remain in contact with the YG provider because they are still participating in a subsidised offer or have returned to the unemployment register.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 20
in 2015 (e.g. Hungary – 68.6% vs 30.4% and Denmark 68.7% vs 49.9%, see Table
12).
There are just five countries in which follow-up data for 2015 include less than 10%
unknowns but even within this small group there is quite a wide range of results. The
proportion of those leaving the YG in 2015 known to be in a positive situation 6 months
later ranged from 71.4% in Ireland and 64.1% in Italy down to 37.7% in Spain and
30.4% in Hungary, with Denmark in the middle of the range at 49.9% (all unadjusted
figures).
The main follow-up indicator showing the proportion of young people known to be in a
positive situation 6 months after exit was only slightly higher for all young women
followed up across the EU (EU20: 36.2%) than for men (34.8%) and the difference at
country level was below 10 pp in all cases (Table 11). There was also only a negligible
difference by age with 35.6% of those aged 20-24 in a positive situation 6 months after
exit compared to 34.9% of those aged 15-19. Here, though, there was more variation
between countries with the younger age-group noticeably more likely to be in a positive
situation in Malta but the older age-group at least 10 pp better off in Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 21
Annex
Table 7 - YG monitoring data, main variables, 2014 and 2015
Note: Figures in red italics in 2014 are not comparable between years but are included in EU aggregates
2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 (%) Stock Entrants Exits Stock Entrants Exits Stock Entrants Exits
EU28 2,471,694 6,839,339 5,621,660 2,475,030 5,488,250 5,429,834 0.1% -19.8% -3.4%
BE 8,539 298,988 76,944 111,720 192,215 241,543 : : :
BG 28,745 90,409 64,968 19,478 46,254 49,388 -32.2% -48.8% -24.0%
CZ 20,882 122,957 64,493 37,111 149,145 97,603 77.7% 21.3% 51.3%
DK 28,597 164,098 136,980 28,107 150,564 124,146 -1.7% -8.2% -9.4%
DE 316,224 1,140,603 837,306 316,536 830,762 831,644 0.1% -27.2% -0.7%
EE 3,311 17,320 14,134 3,413 14,188 13,968 3.1% -18.1% -1.2%
IE 46,200 60,200 60,600 37,400 54,600 55,200 -19.0% -9.3% -8.9%
EL 57,677 112,601 54,929 62,645 108,754 88,094 8.6% -3.4% 60.4%
ES 15,523 23,801 8,274 74,631 138,562 43,042 380.8% 482.2% 420.2%
FR 763,314 1,159,827 1,197,836 715,303 1,082,215 1,184,648 -6.3% -6.7% -1.1%
HR 61,831 160,273 99,299 53,846 92,156 97,490 -12.9% -42.5% -1.8%
IT 31,326 91,629 21,544 133,619 269,456 181,103 326.5% 194.1% 740.6%
CY 5,038 21,228 10,531 2,951 11,215 11,816 -41.4% -47.2% 12.2%
LV 5,089 18,160 12,271 5,936 17,251 18,535 16.6% -5.0% 51.0%
LT 10,550 57,270 43,416 15,261 51,840 57,310 44.7% -9.5% 32.0%
LU 998 2,836 1,403 1,276 3,858 3,991 27.8% 36.0% 184.5%
HU 67,553 179,106 151,423 3,271 34,190 29,622 : : :
MT 731 1,843 1,620 309 1,757 1,980 -57.7% -4.7% 22.2%
NL 46,835 87,130 78,890 46,430 80,100 63,900 -0.9% -8.1% -19.0%
AT 62,636 234,514 230,987 64,759 229,078 228,721 3.4% -2.3% -1.0%
PL 358,649 1,087,684 785,750 291,691 646,133 709,186 -18.7% -40.6% -9.7%
PT 55,908 195,870 133,274 61,496 158,305 150,174 10.0% -19.2% 12.7%
RO 71,356 191,571 167,494 67,702 96,574 153,898 -5.1% -49.6% -8.1%
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 22
2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 (%) Stock Entrants Exits Stock Entrants Exits Stock Entrants Exits
SI 12,116 28,323 17,884 9,719 17,017 16,801 -19.8% -39.9% -6.1%
SK 53,119 113,793 105,992 48,982 111,232 113,000 -7.8% -2.3% 6.6%
FI 43,310 192,110 178,943 47,084 178,225 170,100 8.7% -7.2% -4.9%
SE 54,948 134,655 146,555 44,863 112,594 117,461 -18.4% -16.4% -19.9%
UK 240,690 850,540 917,920 169,490 610,010 575,470 -29.6% -28.3% -37.3%
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 23
Table 8 - Direct supplementary: NEET coverage, 2015 (% NEET population)
Total (15-24)
Men Women 15-19 20-24 25-29
EU average 41.9 44.7 39.7 41.8 41.9 31.6
EU28 37.5 40.3 34.7 39.6 35.7 37.5
BE 69.5 70.4 69.1 49.7 76.2 -
BG 14.3 14.4 14.3 7.6 17.3 21.3
CZ 46.4 64.7 35.7 66.1 42.7 20.5
DK 62.7 59.5 66.1 50.8 65.9 -
DE 60.9 78.2 47.1 65.0 60.1 59.2
EE 23.3 28.6 19.1 24.2 22.9 22.4
IE 50.5 57.8 41.8 30.2 62.8 -
EL 33.9 29.2 38.7 18.6 39.1 -
ES 10.7 10.9 10.3 9.2 11.2 1.8
FR 80.5 80.5 79.6 106.2 70.7 -
HR 59.9 52.6 70.3 63.4 58.1 57.5
IT 10.5 11.1 10.0 12.9 9.7 7.3
CY 19.8 18.3 21.1 5.0 23.9 -
LV 28.1 26.6 29.2 25.5 28.4 31.4
LT 44.9 46.2 43.6 44.8 44.9 48.2
LU 31.1 31.6 31.1 24.2 33.9 -
HU 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.9 2.5 -
MT 5.6 6.9 4.6 9.1 2.3 0.2
NL 48.2 48.7 48.8 : : -
AT 88.7 101.0 75.6 84.7 89.3 -
PL 63.3 54.7 72.8 89.6 59.5 -
PT 49.4 48.6 50.1 50.9 49.0 50.0
RO 17.1 23.3 12.5 23.1 14.1 9.3
SI 50.2 50.8 49.4 40.2 52.8 88.8
SK 54.2 60.2 48.1 62.8 51.8 32.5
FI 71.2 80.1 61.5 69.7 71.8 70.4
SE 56.2 64.8 46.4 73.7 50.7 -
UK 19.9 28.6 13.0 19.6 20.1 15.9
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 24
Table 9 - Direct supplementary: timely and positive exits from the YG, 2015 (% exits)
Total (15-24)
Men Women 15-19 20-24 25-29
EU average 46.7 46.1 47.4 45.3 46.8 53.1
EU28 40.3 39.5 41.4 36.3 43.2 44.1
BE 44.3 42.3 46.4 49.1 43.3 -
BG 35.9 35.1 36.7 32.7 36.7 33.3
CZ 61.5 60.1 63.1 54.8 63.5 68.2
DK 75.1 76.8 73.3 80.6 74.0 -
DE 49.8 51.0 48.2 45.5 51.1 46.6
EE 55.3 54.7 56.2 49.2 57.0 56.3
IE 38.2 35.7 41.7 35.9 38.8 -
EL 27.7 27.0 28.3 28.0 27.6 -
ES 74.3 73.4 75.6 76.4 73.8 97.3
FR 24.3 23.0 25.7 18.2 27.2 -
HR 32.7 32.6 32.9 29.7 34.2 37.7
IT 72.6 71.8 73.5 74.3 71.9 68.9
CY 13.4 10.8 15.5 8.0 13.9 -
LV 43.1 45.0 41.3 50.8 41.6 33.3
LT 42.6 42.4 42.8 37.4 43.6 40.9
LU 33.5 31.8 35.9 26.7 35.6 -
HU 94.2 94.0 94.5 93.1 94.5 -
MT 73.8 71.6 76.9 82.9 45.7 69.5
NL 37.8 40.2 35.3 : : -
AT 49.7 49.1 50.6 50.5 49.3 -
PL 43.2 39.9 46.7 38.3 44.3 100.0
PT 43.3 43.7 42.9 38.7 44.7 45.1
RO 47.8 48.0 47.5 40.9 54.6 53.6
SI 37.8 41.8 32.4 32.5 39.0 40.3
SK 41.4 40.1 42.8 37.8 42.4 40.7
FI 49.0 44.9 54.3 51.6 48.1 45.5
SE 43.2 42.8 43.8 39.8 44.7 -
UK 22.2 21.8 23.0 19.8 23.1 25.5
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 25
Table 10 - Direct main: proportion of young people in the YG for more than 4 months, 2015 (% stock)
Total (15-24)
Men Women 15-19 20-24 25-29
EU average 46.8 46.0 47.4 43.9 48.1 47.4
EU28 58.1 57.0 59.3 60.8 57.0 58.3
BE 42.3 43.5 40.8 37.8 43.2 -
BG 54.3 55.6 53.1 51.8 54.8 58.5
CZ 47.3 46.7 48.0 46.3 47.7 50.7
DK 36.2 33.9 38.5 40.7 35.3 -
DE 49.5 48.8 50.4 49.3 49.5 60.9
EE 23.1 20.5 25.8 21.6 23.5 28.9
IE 64.2 65.2 62.5 56.5 66.4 -
EL 55.5 52.4 57.8 64.7 54.0 -
ES 47.5 48.2 46.6 44.4 48.5 15.9
FR 75.6 75.3 75.9 79.1 73.6 -
HR 56.5 56.1 56.8 58.6 55.3 57.8
IT 52.0 52.8 50.9 51.9 52.0 53.4
CY 33.7 32.7 34.6 24.9 34.3 -
LV 38.7 33.5 42.7 31.7 39.6 48.2
LT 35.7 32.5 39.2 31.6 36.4 43.7
LU 29.2 27.7 30.9 23.4 30.7 -
HU 19.1 19.6 18.5 20.0 18.8 -
MT 26.9 30.2 22.3 18.1 59.1 14.3
NL 57.4 54.6 60.2 : : -
AT 33.1 32.6 33.7 28.6 34.8 -
PL 56.0 49.6 61.3 53.4 56.6 -
PT 46.1 44.6 47.4 44.4 46.6 52.2
RO 72.6 72.7 72.5 70.9 74.0 69.7
SI 56.8 55.2 58.7 50.0 58.2 65.9
SK 61.6 62.2 60.8 65.4 60.3 68.5
FI 46.2 47.4 44.3 33.7 49.4 60.7
SE 43.9 43.7 44.2 45.8 43.1 -
UK 49.2 49.5 48.5 41.3 52.0 57.0
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 26
Table 11 – Follow-up main: proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit from the YG, 2015 (% exits)
Total (15-24)
Men Women 15-19 20-24 25-29
EU average 40.2 39.2 41.2 36.9 40.2 42.6
EU28 35.5 34.8 36.2 34.9 35.6 43.4
BE 41.8 41.3 42.2 42.8 41.6 -
BG 23.4 20.8 26.0 22.8 23.5 17.3
CZ : : : : : :
DK 49.9 51.4 48.1 52.0 49.4 -
DE : : : : : :
EE : : : : : :
IE 71.4 71.4 70.9 68.0 71.9 -
EL 43.7 40.9 46.2 37.3 44.9 -
ES 37.7 38.6 36.5 36.2 38.1 35.1
FR : : : : : -
HR 56.0 56.5 55.4 49.7 59.0 65.8
IT 64.1 62.2 66.5 63.2 64.5 67.4
CY 14.7 13.7 15.5 10.4 15.1 -
LV 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.6
LT 46.0 42.9 50.1 33.7 48.4 49.3
LU 61.3 60.0 63.2 42.9 67.0 -
HU 30.4 30.5 30.3 26.0 31.7 -
MT 68.6 64.6 74.1 76.4 44.5 47.6
NL : : : : : -
AT 62.8 61.9 64.0 61.5 63.4 -
PL 13.5 10.6 16.6 14.6 13.2 99.6
PT 45.4 44.9 45.9 36.8 47.9 49.5
RO 19.7 19.9 19.5 12.3 27.1 32.4
SI : : : : : :
SK 4.3 3.9 4.8 5.2 4.0 4.1
FI : : : : : :
SE 46.7 47.0 46.1 44.2 47.7 -
UK : : : : : :
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2015
October 2016 27
Table 12 – Situation of young people (aged 15-24) 6 months after exit from the YG, 2015 (% exits)
Positive Negative Not applicable
Unknown Adjusted positive (excl. not applicable)
EU average 40.2 14.3 9.9 35.6 45.1
EU28 35.5 16.9 6.6 41.1 37.9
BE 41.8 22.5 17.0 18.7 50.3
BG 23.4 0.2 1.8 74.6 23.8
CZ : : : : :
DK 49.9 16.3 27.4 6.4 68.7
DE : : : : :
EE : : : : :
IE 71.4 20.8 0.0 7.8 71.4
EL 43.7 23.1 0.0 33.2 43.7
ES 37.7 46.9 15.4 0.0 44.5
FR : : : : :
HR 56.0 15.4 10.5 18.1 62.6
IT 64.1 20.5 7.7 7.6 69.5
CY 14.7 3.9 0.0 81.4 14.7
LV 1.6 0.0 35.7 62.6 2.5
LT 46.0 10.6 8.2 35.2 50.2
LU 61.3 10.4 0.0 28.3 61.3
HU 30.4 6.6 55.7 7.3 68.6
MT 68.6 7.8 0.0 23.6 68.6
NL : : : : :
AT 62.8 17.4 0.0 19.8 62.8
PL 13.5 18.8 0.0 67.7 13.5
PT 45.4 10.5 16.9 27.3 54.6
RO 19.7 0.8 0.0 79.4 19.7
SI : : : : :
SK 4.3 14.0 2.2 79.5 4.4
FI : : : : :
SE 46.7 19.8 0.0 33.5 46.7
UK : : : : :
Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 3 October 2016